On 30 Aug 06, at 10:16 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Please see this email from Noel:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-
> general&m=115440482328786&w=2
>
Why can't both aims be met? That of user protection and user
convenience?
I cannot see the how marking *each* and *every* incubator artifact
with a version that clearly says it is from the Apache Incubator
gives less clarity then adding a repository element.
In a standard dependency report like:
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/dependencies.html
It would be very clear looking at the version that it came from the
incubator. And if people download these artifacts with non-Maven
tools like an Ant Task, Ivy or simply check in versions of these
artifacts then they will clearly be seen as coming from the
incubator. If we are going to make it clear then let's do it in the
place where it will be seen by everyone regardless of the tool they
use to build.
Also the Maven 2.x IDE integration will soon have the ability to pull
indices from repositories in order to provide drop down/searchable
lists of available artifacts so it will be easy to grab new artifacts
to put in your POMs. An IDE could easily provide a set of
repositories to pull indices from at which point the user is going to
merrily start pulling down dependencies. When you select an artifact
you always select the version, like in the Eclipse integration, so
people will see "apache-incubator" over and over. They will see the
repository entry once.
If I then had to go to the people doing IDE integration and say
please don't include the apache incubator repository. So you are
going to make us:
1) Deny people the right to distribute software as described in our
license
2) Make the Maven developers go search out all third party
integration efforts to prevent them from providing convenient access
to certain repositories
I think this is a little heavy handed, unfair and unnecessary.
> -- dims
>
> On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>> > Jason,
>> >
>> > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml?
*Any*
>> > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are
you
>> > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they
>> won't
>> > find it and won't know how to use it?
>>
>> As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming
from
>> Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central
>> repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact
required are
>> placed in the central repository.
>>
>> It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise
>> awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done
with the
>> version. It could even be
>>
>> 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1)
>>
>> As I think that would be preferable to users and that is
abundantly
>> clear I think.
>>
>> > The least anyone will need to
>> > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this
when they
>> > browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never
>> look
>> > at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at
>> ibiblio
>> > repo and decide to use a project?
>>
>> The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not
have
>> to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need
to be
>> in the central repository as shown by the many threads when
users go
>> to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central repository.
>>
>> > If they do indeed look, isn't it
>> > trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the
>> > incubation repo? Where's the problem?
>>
>> A lot of times people actually go to the central repository to
find
>> the artifact's groupId and artifactId. They don't go to project
>> websites, they go to the authority which is the central
repository.
>>
>> If the goal here is user awareness then I think using an
version like
>> (1) supports this end to a great extent while being more
convenient
>> for the average Maven user.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > -- dims
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I
want to
>> >> know on
>> >> >> what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting
that
>> >> some
>> >> >> incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio.
>> >> >
>> >> > Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those
>> >> artifacts not
>> >> > to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of
>> >> courtesy.
>> >>
>> >> It just means that we have to start watching for requests
>> coming from
>> >> users to put artifacts in the repository. Effectively you are
>> asking
>> >> us to deny the terms of redistribution stated in our license
>> are you
>> >> not?
>> >>
>> >> We could watch for requests going into Ibiblio, but we can't
>> prevent
>> >> someone else from putting in a repository that they might use.
>> >>
>> >> What is going to happen is that people are going to want to use
>> these
>> >> artifacts and they will want to rsync Ibiblio, which many
>> people do,
>> >> and then attempt to rsync the incubator repository. We are
just
>> >> going to try and circumvent a path that we cannot fully
block off.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see what is not clear with *every* incubator artifact
>> being
>> >> marked with a version that has "incubator" in it. Plus the
reports
>> >> that can be generated give a clear view to users what they are
>> >> consuming.
>> >>
>> >> I read this:
>> >>
>> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-
>> >> general&m=115440663222532&w=2
>> >>
>> >> and to be frank (4) is somewhat paradoxical to me. You want an
>> >> incubator project to thrive, and grow while we are tacitly, yet
>> >> actively, discouraging their use? I think we should let
people use
>> >> their common sense to protect themselves.
>> >>
>> >> What is being envisioned here as the worst case scenario of
>> using an
>> >> incubator artifact for a failed incubator project? The mail
says
>> >> protect the user, but from what?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not going to discourage the use of a project I'm
mentoring and
>> >> fully support. I'm going to get everyone on the planet I can to
>> use
>> >> it as fast and as widely as possible.
>> >>
>> >> > -- justin
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Jason van Zyl
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service
>> > Developers)
>> >
>> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Jason van Zyl
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service
> Developers)
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
